Amritapuri ashram

inevitability of destruction

Today Swami discussed more about the 11th chapter, vishva rupa darshana yoga. Here is another shloka;

‘Dronam ca bhishmam ca jayadratham ca,
Karnam tatha’ nyan api yodhaviran,
Maya hatams tvam jahi ma vyathishta,
Yudhyasva jetasi rane sapatnan.’ 11.34

The Lord says to Arjuna, in His vishva rupa, ‘All of these brave warriors, Drona, Bhishma, Karna, Jayadratha, etc., are already killed by Me. Don’t hesitate, kill these enemies and fight!’

Here, one thing Swami pointed out in particular is the habit of commentators of the Gita in today’s time. Here, the Lord says, ‘jahi,’ ‘Kill!’ Some people don’t like this. They want peace, and can’t imagine that the Lord tells to kill. That’s not all. In other religions, they say not to kill, that peace is needed, while the Gita says to kill. So they think this is a disadvantage, a defect of the Gita. So what do they do? They say, ‘the Lord never said to kill. What it means here is, ‘don’t kill!’ The Lord is preaching non-violence!’
Here, one thing we should understand is that there are many ancient commentators of the GIta, including Sri Shankaracharya, and they all were great scholars of the Sanskrit language. They all supported non-violence, and desired peace, but NONE of them has given such an interpretation. They weren’t that ‘courageous.’
So what is it that makes these modern commentators so ‘courageous’? The answer is very simple. None of them have studied Sanskrit. That’s what gives them the ‘courage’ to write such wrong interpretations. Lacking such basic requirements such as a basic knowledge of Sanskrit grammar, they interpret according to their imagination.
Such ideas may be very high, very inspiring, and good ideas. It’s not that these aren’t good ideas, but if we look, we see that they have NO relationship with what the Lord says. Instead of using the Gita to express their ideas through misinterpretation, it is better if they just be straightforward and express their ideas without the Gita.
All of our ancient acaryas followed strict rules for commentating on the scriptures. Our acaryas never went against those rules in expressing their opinion of the meaning of the shlokas. But that’s not what is seen today. These teachers today rely on purely ‘dictionary Sanskrit,’ Sanskrit without studying the traditional grammar, and interpret according to their own fancies and imagination. Swami said that almost all of the books written in Malayalam about the Gita are by people who have no capacity to understand the Sanskrit language.
This doesn’t mean that mere scholarship is enough to understand and comment on the Gita. That’s not the point. Besides that, a person needs the mental maturity and discrimination born of sadhana to look deep within the meaning of the Gita. But there are some first and foremost things, one of which is a traditional study of the Sanskrit language, at least in basic.
So, the Lord does say ‘kill!’ to Arjuna. That is a fact. How we should understand that is another matter. For that, just refer to the last post, on the inevitability of destruction, and of the Mahabharata war.

Piyush,
June 29, 2007

Comments

4 responses to “inevitability of destruction”

  1. Ambi

    “In other religions, they say not to kill, that peace is needed, while the Gita says to kill.”

    Could Bhagavat Gita be confined within or without any particular religion?

    “Swami said that almost all of the books written in Malayalam about the Gita are by people who have no capacity to understand the Sanskrit language.”

    “Besides that, a person needs the mental maturity and discrimination born of sadhana to look deep within the meaning of the Gita. But there are some first and foremost things, one of which is a traditional study of the Sanskrit language, at least in basic.”

    Great Souls like Guru Nithya Chaithanya Yati through his BHAGAVAT GITA SWADHYAYAM published by D C Books, Dr. Nataraja Guru through his English commentry published by Narayana Gurukulam, Varkala, Prof. G Balakrishnan Nair through his Sivaravindam Mahabhashyam published by State Institutie of Languages, Kerala, to mention a few, have blessed us with their works on Bhagavat Gita.

    So please reconsider before
    publishing such statements for public.

    Kaaliyambi & Gouriprasad

  2. Anonymous

    In the post, I did say ‘almost all.’ Therefore, I cannot make the judgement where to draw that line. Also, Swami talked about Malayalam books, not English ones. Swami has never said about the English versions, only the Malayalam ones.
    The fact is that there are many mistakes in other Malayalam books on the scriptures, especially on Shankara’s Bhashyas.
    Take for example one verse in the the first chapter of the Gita, ‘aparyaptam tad asmakam, balam bhishmabhirakshitam.’
    The meaning given by every single book I have found is ‘Our side, led by Bhishma, is insufficient.’
    This mistake comes from not understanding that there are two meanings for the word ‘paryaptam,’ ‘sufficient,’ and ‘limited.’ Here, the meaning should be, ‘our side, led by Bhishma, is unlimited.’ This is because Duryodhana is so arrogant that he would never admit to his side being weak, which is wasn’t. It was actually stronger.
    I haven’t read the books you mentioned, so I cannot comment on those, but when Swami talks about knowledge of Sanskrit, he means the traditional method of learning, through Panini’s grammar sutras, not by looking up words in the dictionary. This knowledge is something that has almost been completely lost in Kerala, and I would be surprised if any of the commentators seen today have studied Sanskrit in this way.
    If they haven’t, then their ideas may be very great, but there will be bound to be such mistakes, including the one mentioned, about ‘jahi’ meaning ‘don’t kill!.’
    Swami was just pointing out that our ancient acaryas would never comment on anything without a strong foundation of knowledge of the language, in the manner said. Today’s commentators maybe aren’t able to have access to that, because of today’s times. Because of that, we see that they often comment in a way opposed to the ancient commentators. As to what is right, the individual can decide, but we should understand that such a matter exists.
    In the time of Shankaracarya, etc., if a person were to comment on the scriptures without mastering Panini’s grammar, not a single person would accept it. That is how it was in those days. The times have changed today. As someone with respect for that ancient culture, it is naturally dissappointing to see the current trend, how the scriptures become like play dough for anyone to say anything. That was never how it was in the old times. They would always be able to back up anything they said with the rules of grammar.
    So, I don’t feel bad that this way published in public. Also, understand that this class is for the brahmacaris. They have to be ready to face such difficult subjects and have more understanding than an ordinary person. So please, just take what you like, and discard the rest.
    Om,
    Piyush

  3. piyush

    I talked to Swami about this post, and he added some corrections. He gave some more suitable examples of some mistakes by well-known modern authors. In one book of Shankara’s commentary of the Brahma Sutras, one author mistakes the purva paksha, or opposing philosophy of Shankara as Shankara’s own Siddhanta.
    Also, Swami said that it’s not particular needed to study Panini’s grammar, as there are other Indian systems of grammar (Sarasvata, etc.) Also, when I said that this is for brahmacaris, this means that it is for serious students, and they won’t find as much confusion in these subjects. Thanks,
    Piyush

  4. Anonymous

    Lord Krishna does not propagate killing. What Lord Krishna urges Arjuna to do it fulfill his duty. Arjuna is a warrior by profession and that is his purpose and destiny in the cosmic order of things.
    Everyone must fulfill their duties in life as a service to Lord Krishna and not to satisfy their urges and desires. Those doing so will be free of from this vicious cycle of death and birth.

    Hope this ends the debate.
    Jai Shrikrishna.

Leave a Reply

More posts